Maybe in a few years the Sony A7 series bodies will be as refined as Olympus EM1 now, and there will be a decent set of native lenses to chose from. However, my experience with Sony over many years is that while they make brilliant one-off designs (like DSC-F and RX series) they severely lack commitment to the existing user base.

Link please?

come on, it has been like that for more than ten years with digital cameras, and even longer with many other Sony products.

But if you think that they compete, good luck.

Next week the A6000 will be announced. This camera is much closer to m43, and yet, even this camera does not really compete either, imho. Silly arguments.

Try to read and understand proper arguments, rather than keep switching topics and throwing in everything-and-the-kitchen-sink to make an argument. It does not change the outcome, it only changes how we view (all of) you...

there is no sense arguing with fanboys, so I will keep it short. I didn't way EM1 is a 'better' camera than A7(r) in every way; in the right conditions the A7 will make higher quality pictures. But I sure think EM1 is a more refined product in many ways (even though I would not buy one myself) and I'm definitely not the only one. m43 also has a FAR better range of native, good quality lenses which is more important than a 'cutting edge' body. You can read the same from many experienced photographers that have compared these two cameras.

That's a fair response, thank you.

Still, why not compare the EM1 + 14-40/2.8 Pro with the RX10? Aside its fixed-lens limitation, the two cameras are fairly comparable: the EM1 shoots at f/5.6 FF equiv, the RX10 at f/8 FF equiv. The RX10 costs as much as the EM1 body, which makes the EM1 a lot more pricey with the lens.

If I were a professional photographer looking for another camera to have with me, the RX10 would peak my interest, especially with its great video output.

And yet, we are made to believe that the m43 sensor is the best trade-off for everyone? I disagree, as it really depends on one's need. The RX10 may suit m43 users (that only want the 12-40 zoom) perhaps better? And a Nex camera may be a better trade-off between size/cost/IQ/low-light ability for most consumers? I am just making a point here - each sensor size has a specific use application. m43 users seem to want to overstate is practicality. I mean EM-5/Nex-7 and now EM-1/A7 comparisons? And 24Mp means nothing?

As to the FAR better range of m43 lenses, but should you not compare m43 against Nex cameras, really? Nex has an impressive range of lenses already - just an indication of what to expect for the A7.

And just how many lenses did you actually purchase - and how would this compare to Nex lenses? Aren't there a lot of similarities? (Ok, Sony is lacking a fast tele prime and a long tele zoom, otherwise...)

And many experienced photographers that compare these two formats and only comment on lens-superiority miss the boat entirely, imho. I mean, FF versus m43? Why not compare m43 versus P&S? To me, ignoring the most important difference is huge. Sure, a smaller sensor works, but if I have to shoot the A7 with lenses at f/5.6 and slower, I would feel severely limited. Why would an experienced photographer skip this point? Heck, the RX100 would be my go-to camera if I wanted to shoot at f/8 and gain ultimate pocket-ability.

Sure, you can flip this around. If I shoot a scene at f/11 with the A7, then I may as well have used an m43. So I get users coming home and saying "nice camera" to the EM1. But, all my shots, longterm, will look alike (deep DOF). This to me is limiting. And how would an RX10 experience be?

I do think that the EM1 is a fine camera, but put this in context of 1" (RX10), APS-C and FF sensors, and begin to line up sensor sizes by application. The EM1 is simply too big and too expensive to justify its alignment with the A7. Put the EM1 next to the half-priced upcoming A6000, and you see just how big and expensive the EM-1 really is. And the A6000 has quite an assortment of lenses to pick from too. And a much less restrictive crop factor for legacy lenses too.

I agree with a lot you are saying above.

I don't think m43 is optimal or superior in any way, but it has the advantage of being a completely new system (without the legacy issues that e.g. Nikon and Canon have with their DSLRs) plus it is a relatively mature system that has progressed through the years to optimize the cameras and lens line. Any advantage might be temporary IF Sony stays the course with A7.

RX10: yes very nice camera, but the fixed lens makes it inflexible in some ways. For those who buy m43 with kit zoom only or few lenses in the 24-200mm range, RX10 could be a better choice. I loved the DSC-F717 and I think the RX10 is some kind of spiritual successor of the F series (bigger sensor, 1 stop slower lens, much better WA reach and of course more up-to-date electronics, higher speed, quality video etc.).

I also agree that EM1 is big (and expensive) for its sensor size compared to A7, and that might be a problem for Olympus when the Sony system matures. But depending on lens choice the EM1 can still be a lot smaller (if you can afford using lenses with smaller equiv. aperture).